Stardrive.org Jack Out Of The Box

The Hard Problem Made Easy

Jan 11 2000

TELEPATYPE FROM SPECTRA

Watch "the others" at work with Jumping Jack Flash. Watch the Mad Genius (maybe two?) at work in his laboratory. :-)

daniel.lapadatu@sensonor.no wrote:

[Jack Out Of The Box - prev]

Nonsense. My formula is general for all forms of life. It does not give same answer as Penrose's model. My model says whole brain generates a conscious moment, Penrose says only a tiny part of the brain does it.

[DL]

What you describe above are the INNER workings of the models, which are indeed different. But the output in both is still the same: tc around half a second.

[Jack]

You have a strange sense of scientific value. The ability to simply and vividly explain and compute the duration of a conscious moment based on the brain architecture and the cosmological structure of the universe in terms of an elementary mathematical expression is an enormous breakthrough in science hidden in plain view. It's simply that Stapp, Penrose and myself are too far ahead of the pack (not that we all agree in detail) so there is a lot of cognitive dissonance. It's like Galileo asking the Inquisition to look through his telescope.

Note many of the great ideas of physics can be expressed in a mathematically simple fashion

F = ma

(Newton's law of motion)

F = -GMm/r^2

(Newton's law of gravity)

EMF (electric vorticity) = -(d/dt) Magnetic Flux

(Faraday's Dynamo)

c^2 = 1/epsilon mu

(Maxwell's unification of light electricity and magnetism in the physical vacuum)

magnetic vorticity = electric current + d/dt(electric Flux)

(Ampere-Maxwell law lead too Marconi's radio wave)

dEntropy = dHeat/Absolute Temperature

Work Out/Hot Heat In = 1 - T(Cold)/T(Hot)

(Second Law of Thermodynamics)

E = mc^2

(Einstein's special relativity, equivalence of mass to energy)

E = hf

(Planck's and Einstein's quantization of energy)

p = h/lambda

(De Broglie's matter wave)

delta p delta x > h

(real processes)

delta p delta x < h

(virtual processes e.g. ZPE)

v = Hr

(Hubble's cosmological red shift where 1/H = "age of universe" Big Bang or no Big Bang = 13 billion years)

M^2/m(Planck)^2 = c-bits of information on surface of a black hole.

Elastic bending of space-time = Stress-Energy of Matter

(Einstein's general relativity of gravity)

Plastic torsion field displacement of space-time = Matter Rotation + Quantum Macro-Coherence ?

(Shipov-Modanese metric engineering of practical warp and wormhole "vacuum propeller"?) UNDER CONSTRUCTION

t(C)N = 1/H

(Sarfatti's Universal Law of Cosmological Consciousness Generation)

[DL]

For the moment all we have is just a black box in front of us and we know that its output is tc = 0.3 sec. We don't know what's in. You came with a model, Stuart with another one. Both predict the same output. The tc argument is not enough to distinguish the two.

[Jack]

Simply false. You have a very fragmented understanding of this. One can, in principle, clearly distinguish the two, using variable N with naturally conscious AI quantum dot network brains in the coming post-quantum computer hardware industrial revolution I am spearheading. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. See Q*-Chip Logo

[DL]

You (or Stuart) need a prediction that will give different answers. Like "what's the advance of the Mercury perihelion in Newton's and Einstein's theory?" The answer is different and you can tell who's right. If you ask "what's the attraction force between two spheres of 1 kg at 1 m distance one from another?" the answer is the same and you can't distinguish the two, even if the inner workings of the two are different. I wonder if you ever worked in the experimental world! Because if you did you would understand how important is to have theories that work with things you can measure and not with things that you can't (which are fine for philosophers).

[Jack]

t(C) = 0.3 sec, N = 10^18, 1/H = 13 billion years. These three seemingly independent experimental numbers from psychology, brain anatomy and cosmology all fit together in my post-quantum equation

[DL]

That's the inner working of your theory. It's inside the black box and we can't check it right now.

[Jack]

False.

[DL]

This is what I ask: how your post QM will change the QM in such a way that we will get answers to things not answered untill now. For instance is your theory giving an answer to "why the mass of the electron is what is?"

[Jack]

Rome was not built in a day. Even God required six. The mass of the electron requires plastic torsion fields generating and stabilizing electric fields in a soliton extended structure.

[Jack - prev]

Now my formula here can be compared in importance to Maxwell's connecting three seemingly independent numbers, the speed of light from optics, the electric dielectric response from electricity and the magnetic permeability response from magnetism in vacuum or matter as

[DL]

Yes, but to accept this thing, Maxwell and Faraday worked out specific experiments where they've tested predictions not made before by other theories. Your theory is not yet there. It's stuck at that formula and it does not go forward. I am sure you work on it. Let me know if you arrive somewhere.

[Jack]

Hey dude, the consciousness generation problem is a lot more subtle than playing with pith balls and lodestones with pinholes and candles. They had it easier back then. I am quite happy with

t(C) = 1/HN

for now. You should be too. It's easy to be a critic. It's hard to come up with something really different, new and testable like I have done in this formula whose meaning and implications are still not completely understood by me. I am simply The Messenger. I do the Will of SPECTRA! It's Childhood's End Dude, Dig The Beat (Stage direction - stock shot of Bill Clinton playing saxophone in Bohemian Night Club).

[Jack]

First I don't care what you ask for.

[DL]

But you do care to see your theory accepted...

[Jack]

I am in no hurry. The Laputan Pundits now in power will never accept it. I work for future generations yet to come. I will not be forgotten. I guarantee it. :-)

[Jack - prev]

You are fooling yourself with a delusion. You do not understand Hameroff's theory and you do not understand my theory if you think they are saying the same thing.

[DL]

They are the same in what concerns that specific output: the tc.

[Jack]

You are simply being silly to obssess on this wrong idea you have. You cannot see the obvious. Perhaps Paul Zielinski can explain your elementary error in the philosophy of science. You make it sound as if identifying mind as a physical property of the universe is some small trivial matter like computing a scattering cross section, or finding some new elementary particle to add to the catalog of epicycles.

[DL]

Do you have something else?

[Jack]

Do you? As if what I do have is not good enough. What I do have is a source of wonder and amazement to anyone with any sense.

[DL]

Hameroff's model can explain more neurological aspects than yours (in my opinion).

[Jack]

Not in mine.

[DL]

But since there is no agreement in involved quantities (no mathematical models of neurological aspects) it is plenty of room for argument and endless debates.

[Jack]

WRONG! My numbers are different from Hameroff's, my physical picture is completely different. My numbers depend upon cosmology, theirs do not. What you say is ludicrous. They are not the same.

[DL]

OK. I'll make up right here a "model" that will predict the same tc:

Let's say that our subjective perception of time is related to the rate of entropy change in the brain, according to the following law:

tsubjective = A / (dS/dt)

where dS/dt is the cortex's entropy change rate and A a proportionality constant (a unit conversion factor). If you have N neurones involved and dSn/dt is the entropy rate change due to one single neurone you get:

tc = A/[N dSn/dt)]

One can evaluate dSn/dt from the neurophysiological processes. I can't do this because I don't know those processes in such a detail to perform such an evaluation. As an example let's say that from such evaluations it turns out that A / (dSn/dt) is 10^6 sec. Then I can claim that there are 3 millions of neurones involved in the consciuosness evoking process because I am getting tc = 0.3 sec. Does this make my model right?

[Jack]

You can never make a model right. You can only make it wrong. Read Popper. In my theory there is a deep underlying ontology. You have one good idea in your model. You have no connection to cosmology. Also one can show in principle that "neurons" cannot generate consciousness (Stapp). Why, because they are "classical" as Tegmark has correctly pointed out, for example. Now

tc = A/[N(dS/dt)] = 1/HN

Therefore

A/(dS/dt) = 1/H

dS/dt = HA

Where dS/dt = rate of c-bit entropy production per qubit.

The question now is whether A is some interesting universal constant or not?

Let's try the Beckenstein black hole thermodynamical formula of Lenny Susskind's "Holographic Universe".

A = k m^2/(10-5 grams)^2

k = Boltzmann's constant.

m = mass of the qubit.

dS/dt = Hk (m/(10-5 grams))^2

So, for the the universal mind we have

NdS/dt = 2piNGHkm^2/hc

So, for your homework problem class compute this total rate of entropy production for the human brain based on my model in which

N = 10^18 from experiment

1/H = 13 billion years from experiment

k = 1.4 10^-15 ergsK^-1

m = 10^-27 grams

h = 2pi 10^-27 gm cm^2/sec

c = 3 10^10 cm/sec

This is good test. Is this number plausible? I will work on it later. Meantime send me in your numbers for this!

[DL]

How can you build a theory of consciousness ignoring the neurology?

[Jack]

My you are dense. Stapp (and Tegmark) already showed neurons cannot generate consciousness. They are too big and massive. It is the light dancing caged electron SETS inside them that do it. I am not ignoring them you dunce! That's the experimental number N = 10^18 that Hameroff told me.

[Jack]

The Sci Real Story is better than any Sci Fi Story. I guarantee it!

[DL]

Of course. Just that you cannot impose things to reality. But you can do this in SciFi.

[DL]

If you are right about your formula (tc = 1/HN), it means that consciousness arises from the fact that the two possible locations of one electron in your qubits are getting apart by the inflating Universe (and here H pops in).

[Jack]

Good you are not as dumb as you sometimes pretend! A+ for you on that one. Very good. You are now one of the few people in the world at this moment who understands that!

[DL]

This is a re-interpretation of that Doppler effect that you use in the deduction (to change the frequency). But things are not like this in reality:

1) Even if the Universe inflates or contracts, the electromagnetic equilibrium of electrons within atomic or molecular structures is unaffected.

[Jack]

Wrong! You just went dumb again. Ah, for a brief moment there was Camelot!

[DL]

The value of a0 (the fundamental orbit in the hydrogen atom) is constant (does not change due to the inflation of the Universe). It's the same with molecules. Therefore the locations of the electrons in the tubulines will not change. Therefore no step down frequency transformer.

[Jack]

Since my numbers work, that shows that what you just said is factually wrong. You are simply making an ugly ad hoc assumption that the Hubble flow equation breaks down at the 1 nanometer scale. The facts so far back me up and prove you wrong on this.

[DL]

2) Let's say that it's not the location inside a qubit that matter, but the locations of the coherent qubits with respect to each other.

[Jack]

That's an incredibly stupid thing to say, since the whole point of the nonlocal connection found in real experiments is that the connection is beyond explicate classical geometrodynamics in the implicate quantum order where space-time separation does not matter. That's why remote-viewing can happen when in addition there is post-quantum signal-nonlocality.

[DL]

Then I must say that biological changes inside the brain (growth, death of cell, displacements of cells realtive to each other) are far larger than what comes from the inflating Universe.

[Jack]

Red Herring. I am only talking about how consciousness is generated. I am not talking about the very complex biological stuff going on in parallel with it supporting it.

[DL]

If you are right then a maser with ammonia (I mean NH3) with 10^18-10^20 molecules in a single coherent beam should be conscious.

[Jack]

One of the first things Hans Bethe taught us in his 1960 Senior Honors Physics Seminar of 8 students at Cornell was that in in particle beams in ordinary scattering there are not correlations among the particles.

Now, if you can make a molecular beam coherent because of the phase-locking of the coherent maser radiation to the electric dipoles, and if you can keep that beam in that state long enough without decoherence, and if you can provide inputs and outputs for it, then that is exactly what I am predicting will happen! That is, in principle we can make a naturally conscious AI brain with a coherent molecular beam. It's not as though people have tried it already! You are putting the cart before the horse. Remember the N for this beam has to be at least 10^18 for it to be conscious at our rate. This will be a good trick if you can do it. My company is SPECTRA from Roswell's Universal Robots.

[DL]

The ammonia molecule has two states separated roughly by few angstroms from each other, as the electrons in the tubulines (separation is larger for the latter, but this can be compensated by the number of coherent molecules in the maser). Is the ammonia based maser conscious?

[Jack]

Sure, if you do it right!

[DL]

Or all the superconductors and superfluids that may happen to posses two equivalent states slightly separated from each other? I don't think so.

[Jack]

I think so. Let's see who is right. Let experiment decide.

[DL]

Consciousness has something orchestrated in it (self-orchestraded or not).

[Jack]

Red Herring, thats the whole point of post-QM that "Orch" is there universally if

t(C) < t(D).

"But the real glory of science is that we can find a way of thinking such that the law is evident. ... For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman "I want to know God's thoughts ... the rest are details." Einstein http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/

"The Superstring Theory of Everything" hyped in the media is, in Wolfgang Pauli's words

"not even wrong."

It's pretty science fiction. One day it may make a significant testable prediction that works. That day has not yet come. It has not come for controlled hot thermonuclear fusion or for quantum computing either. There is more evidence for alien ET UFOs and the paranormal, indeed for cold fusion, than for hot fusion. What is real?

Is space-time a wrong idea? Dr. Phipps thinks so. Are quantum collapse and the measurement problem wrong ideas? David Bohm thought so. Einstein's relativity and quantum theory do not fit together. It's forcing square pegs into round holes. The theory of Mr. Phipps fits quantum theory perfectly. There is time dilation with no length contraction. Hence absolute simultaneity. Hence the Bohm quantum potential Q in configuration space is frame-invariant as is.

Pauli to Einstein

"Stop telling God what to do!"

"Einstein's 'general relativity,' or geometric theory of gravitation, or 'geometrodynamics,' has two central ideas: (1) Spacetime geometry 'tells' mass-energy how to move; and (2) mass-energy 'tells' spacetime geometry how to curve."

John Archibald Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia p. 49

My really new post-quantum theory is simply this same idea of Einstein's extended from the above classical physics of the material "explicate order" to Bohm's quantum ontology with an additional mental "implicate order" of the quantum information pilot field "psi" of q-bits. This nonlocal, nonmechanical, nonmaterial, but physical, guiding field of quantum information acts directly in the infinite-dimensional configuration space of classical sources, of classical forces, and of classical spacetime geometry that all together form the Bohm point "X". X is missing from all the other interpretations of the meaning of the quantum. Therefore, they are in Einstein's sense "incomplete". Bohm does not use "mental". That is my additional interpretation. Bohm's "causal theory", which is a covering theory of orthodox quantum theory, at least in the limit of Galilean relativity, is that the q-bit field "tells" the material sources, forces and spacetime geometry, all of them, how to move, but not vice versa. That is, in the approximation that is the "causal theory", sources, forces and spacetime geometry do not "tell" the q-bit pilot field what to do. This, obviously, is a violation of the action-reaction principle. We have the analog to Wheeler's (1) above, but not to (2). What happens when the material sources, forces and geometry, like Einstein talking back to God, like Jacob wrestling with The Angel, do 'tell' the mental q-bit field what to do? You get a feedback control loop between mind and matter, which now coevolve in spontaneous self-organization or "two-way relationship" (Bohm & Hiley). Consciousness is, therefore, generated, as a kind of curvature, in the mental q-bit field. That's obviously what happens. Nothing could be easier to understand.

The duration of an undivided conscious moment is

t(C) = 1/HN

H = Hubble's constant from cosmology

N = number of entangled q-bits protected against decoherence for a time at least equal to t(C).

This formula is universal and it works.

1/H = 3x10^17 sec,
N = 10^18 q-bits

i.e. a mega-tera = 1exa q-bit human brain post-quantum biocomputer capacity.

The Mind of I.J. Good's "GOD(D)"
has 10^61 q-bits piloting the 3-geometry of our visible material universe.
In GOD(D) We Trust. :-)

Why 1 second for human consciousness?

1. Review of Hameroff-Penrose "Orch-OR" Toy Model.

Imagine a single q-bit in the human biocomputer. This is a nano-sized natural quantum dot or SET (Single Electron Transistor) of mass m = 10^-31 kg inside a protected hydrophobic case in each of the million-trillion tubulins inside the nerve cells of the human brain. The potential energy curve of the SET is like that of the nitrogen atom in ammonia molecule NH3 in the Feynman lectures i.e. a double well. The electron is coherently in two spatial locations at the same time separated by distance "a" of the order of 10^-9 meters. This is the q-bit. I used Bohr's picture in what I just said. In Bohm's picture the electron's actual location x(t) is in one of two basins of attraction on the landscape provided by the physically real quantum pilot field. The path x(t) is influenced by both basins when they merge. Decoherence of the landscape, i.e. entanglement of the separate basins with environmental degrees of freedom is avoided by the hydrophobic cage barrier.

Penrose says that the quantum gravity self-energy of this q-bit is of order E(OR|1) = Gm^2/a = 6.710^-11 10^-62 10^9 = 6.7 10^-64 Joules

T(OR|1) = h/E(OR|1) = 6.7 10^-34/6.7 10^-64 = 10^30 second

for a single q-bit. Note, for comparison the age of the universe is of the order of 10^17 seconds. That is quantum gravity will not objectively collapse a single-electron q-bit. What happens to the 10^18 q-bits in the human brain? The general formula is obviously of the order

E(OR|N) = NE(OR|1) + [N(N-1)/2]Gm^2/(a + d)

where d is the average separation between q-bits. Assume a/d << 1. First compare the diagonal self term with the off-diagonal pair term.

NE(OR|1)/[N(N-1)/2]Gm^2/(a + d) =>

N(Gm^2/a)/[N(N-1)/2]Gm^2/(a + d) =>

(1/a)/[(N-1)/2]1/(a + d) = 2(a+d/a)/(N-1) => (d/a)/N << 1

Gm^2/(a + d) => Gm^2/d = (a/d)Gm^2/a = (a/d)E(OR|1)

N^2 >> N

So to a good approximation

E(OR|N) = N^2(a/d)E(OR|1)

Therefore, in the human if N =10^18

T(OR|N) = (d/a)T(OR|1)/N^2 = (d/a) 10^30/10^36 = (d/a)10^-6 seconds

This would require that (d/a) = 10^6, i.e. d = 10^-3 meters = 0.1 cm. Since the brain is around 10 cm across and since we need a weighted average over the entire brain treated as a kind of hologram, this estimate is plausible. Note d is not nearest neighbor distance between q-bits.

2. Comparison with post-quantum theory. My toy model gives

T(C|N) = 1/HN = 3 10^17/N

H = Hubble's "constant" from cosmology

with T(C|N) < T(OR|N)

The critical crossing point for Nmax is

T(C|Nmax) = T(OR|Nmax)

i.e. 1/HNmax = (d/a)T(OR|1)/Nmax^2 = hd/Gm^2Nmax^2

i.e. Nmax = (d/a)HT(OR|1) = (d/3a)10^-17x10^30 = (d/3a) 10^13

This is good because (d/a) = O(10^6) is the correct ball bark of the million-trillion SETs in the human brain. So the two models are mutually consistent in giving human consciousness a duration on the order of 1 second.

New quantitative confirmation of post-quantum theory and reply to Hameroff's latest.

I now consider that my theory of consciousness generation in the brain is extremely plausible quantitatively that any objective open-minded physicist, without a competing idea to defend, will not fail to understand.

Further note on the size of the (d/a) parameter.

N = 10^18 q-bits in the human brain that occupies approximately 1 liter. That's approximately 10^15 q-bits/cc = 10^15/10^21 = 10^-6 q-bits/nanometer^3. Therefore nearest neighbor separation is of the order of 100 nanometers. The scale of the phased-array interferometer holographic web of nonlocally connected electric dipole antenna q-bits is 10cm = 10^8 nanometers. A good estimate of the weighted average separation between all N(N-1)/2 pairs of cross-linked q-bits that contribute to the Penrose quantum gravity self-energy of the entire holographic web is the geometric mean of the local nearest neighbor distance with the global size of the whole, i.e.

(10^2 10^8)^1/2 = 10^5 = (d/a)

but Nmax = (d/a)HT(OR|1) = (d/a)10^13 = 10^18

BINGO! This model is too consistent to be wrong! It gives sensible answers from many points of view.

Note the relevant factors that all conspire together to give a coherent quantitative picture of the generation of consciousness in the brain

1. Large scale structure of the universe H

2. Total number of tubulins in the brain N

3. Size of a tubulin a

4. Mass of the electron m

5. Newton's constant G

6. Planck's constant h

7. Actual size of brain

8. Common observation that we are conscious on a scale of 1 second within an order of magnitude.

Reply to Hameroff

Subject: [q-mind] How many tubulins? - Stuart Hameroff

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 22:10:20 -0700

From: Stuart Hameroff

[Jack- prev]

My formula gives close to that number 300 msec which is also Libet's number using all 10^18 tubulins to form the holographic phased array of nanodipoles. This is the real difference with Hameroff's Orch OR that says only about 10^10 tubulins for that same time scale. In my theory the brain uses every last tubulin for every conscious moment - not so in Hameroff's theory. My theory makes a lot more sense in correlating brain size evolution with the evolution of consciousness.

[Stuart]

So an elephant is more conscious than us?

[Jack]

Possibly. That depends on the parameter (d/a) because my theory has an Nmax depending on (d/a). My theory is a covering theory of Hameroff-Penrose theory which is underparametrized. I have more equations than you do. I have the crossing point which you do not have and I show that there is a maximum number of q-bits for given scale parameters for the q-bit architecture.

[Stuart].

The problem with Jack's notion is that a variety of sources of information tell us that the vast majority of what the brain does is non-conscious---consciousness is merely the "tip of an iceberg".

[Jack]

Red Herring. My theory says that also. My theory, unlike your theory, is that the brain really is a hologram in which ALL of the caged electron q-bits in the tubulins participate in each conscious moment. This certainly does not preclude parallel simultaneous unconscious multi-tasking by other subsystems of the brain coupled to these q-bits.

[Stuart]

If all the processing were devoted to consciousness, who/what would be taking care of respiration, thermal control, cardiovascular regulation, motor control, neurohormonal regulation, memory consolidation, learning, etc etc?

[Jack]

You fail to understand what the picture is. The caged electrons responsible for consciousness-generation are only a very small subsystem of the brain. My model does not contradict any of these above supposed objections to it.

[Stuart]

Most estimates from cognitive studies, brain imaging etc come in at around 100,000 neurons at most per conscious moment.

[Jack]

This claim does not survive critical analysis. It depends on unjustified assumptions.

[Stuart]

For example Christof Koch maintains that very few neurons (hundreds) are involved in consciousness.

[Jack]

Since Koch has no idea of the real physical nature of the living field and since he makes the wrong assumption that consciousness is generated at the coarse-grained scale of neurons, what he says is irrelevant IMHO. Also what he says is not even consistent with your own microtubule theory. I don't care how "respectable" he is, or how good he is in his narrow specialty. He fails to understand the essential physics of the problem.

[Stuart]

This has been discussed extensively at the Tucson conferences, for example, but Jack has said many times that he believes everything presented there is a waste of time.

[Jack]

You have just amply re-confirmed my previous accurate opinion.

[Stuart]

Also, I must add that "Jack's theory" is but a modification of the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR theory, or from my previous work.

[Jack]

Inspired by your theory, yes. Modification of it, yes. Your theory is seriously incomplete. Penrose only saw a fragment of the whole, an important fragment, so did you. Have the grace to understand what I am proposing. From your irrelevant remarks above you still do not get it.

[Stuart]

The only new elements Jack attempts to add serve only to detract from its feasibility.

[Jack]

Yes, we agree. But rightly so, since your theory is incomplete. It is not wrong. It is seriously incomplete. I am able to compute more things with my theory and to exclude possibilities that remain open in yours. I have the more comprehensive picture connecting all consciousness to the universe as a whole. You should applaud my taking your initial idea to where no man has thought before rather than try to denigrate it. You are not acting in your own self-interest. For example, your defense of Koch.

[Stuart]

See Section 5.3 in the original Orch OR paper by Roger Penrose

"Gary S. Bekkum" gbekkum@mediaone.net wrote: Hi Stuart,

Based on your comments below, I have to question whether you actually have an understanding of what Jack is proposing in his post quantum variation of Penrose-Hameroff theory. I have added a few comments, and Jack will no doubt correct me if I am in error.

IMHO it would be best for all of the "quantum conscious theorists" to politely agree to disagree, and to recognize the more serious threat of the "anti-quantum consciousness" rhetoric, such as the recent Tegmark paper being promoted as the final nail in the coffin by David Deutsch.

[Jack]

Deutsch's "shadow particles" are "excess metaphysical baggage" (Wheeler) It is an entirely ad hoc ugly notion that is not required in Bohm's theory which is more with less in terms of explanatory power.

[Stuart Hameroff]

I'll not take the time now to respond to Jack's comments except to note he makes at least one fundamentally wrong assumption. Regarding Christof Koch and the number of neurons involved in consciousness, I don't defend his assertion, but raise it as a valid point of reference grounded in experimentation. The same is true of other claims about 100,000 neurons/conscious event. Proposals about consciousness which are not grounded in neuroscientific reality will never be taken seriously.

[Gary]

The power of any theory of consciousness depends upon how well the theory can explain consciousness as "the experience of being" as opposed to merely explaining "the elements of that experience". In any theory in which consciousness is taken to be a fundamental property of the universe (in the same sense that gravity is a fundamental force) it is important to clearly define the boundary between "the conscious experience itself" and "that which is experienced". At the biological level we do not experience 100,000 neurons nor 10 ^18 microtubules, but we do experience "the conscious awareness of being", in whatever form that experience may take. It is the fundamental "experience of experiencing" that is primary to all other aspects of the theory.

Jack's theory is universal in the sense that it addresses consciousness as the self-evolving "mirror" of "that which is experienced" at many different levels. However, the primary level is the fundamental self-evolution of the quantum potential and the material system. Every action of the material system is mirrored in the backaction upon the quantum potential which guides it. This creates a fundamental tension between thought and material reality in any system in the universe that provides the conditions necessary to protect this fragile evolution. The human brain may be only one special case of fundamental consciousness.

Jack notes in his theory some of the important mathematical relationships, which include the large scale structure of the universe H, total number N of SET (single electron transistors - tubulins in the brain), size of the SET (tubulin a), mass of the electron m, Newton's constant G, Planck's constant h, etc.

It is interesting that these relationships can produce potentially relevant numbers for the case of the human brain. Certainly that is where Jack is focusing his attention. However, the really important aspect of Jack's theory is not to be found in the numbers, but rather in the pure and simple revelation of the back action of the material world upon the thought-like, and the recognition that consciousness is a special case of a truly fundamental action-reaction principle.

[Stuart]

The problem with Jack's notion is that a variety of sources of information tell us that the vast majority of what the brain does is non-conscious---consciousness is merely the "tip of an iceberg".

[Gary]

Your comment above indicates that you have yet to fully understand what Jack is proposing. It is not the brain which is conscious, but the "tension" produced by the Single Electron Transistors (SETs) in the brain acting back upon the quantum potential, which is non-local in space-time. That back action alters the quantum potential which determines the position that the SETs are in, and the SETs in turn react back upon the potential. As this two way process evolves, the entangled SETs produce the unified "tension" of conscious experience in the quantum potential and the resulting binding of the multifaceted configurations localized in various parts of the brain.

In addition there are two forms of unconscious activity. The first is the mechanical classical brain functions. The second is more interesting, and that is the inactive Bohmian channels which are possible but unrealized configurations of the SETs.

[Stuart]

[Gary]

Again, all of the above is mechanical processing. Conscious "attention" is perhaps the relationship of the self-organization of the quantum potential/backaction of the SETs to the Darwinian effects upon the system. If you want to test this, try hitting your thumb as hard as you can with a hammer, and you can experience the Darwinian effects first hand :-) What takes place is a strong backaction upon the quantum potential, an increase in the "tension" of being conscious of the effect, and the resulting awareness of intense pain.

[Stuart]

Most estimates from cognitive studies, brain imaging etc come in at around 100,000 neurons at most per conscious moment.

[Gary]

The number of neurons/time of conscious moment is simply a measure of activity in the brain during an experience, and does not necessarily relate this activity to the fundamental property of consciousness any more than the number of falling apples on the earth at a given moment can explain gravity.

[Stuart]

Also, I must add that "Jack's theory" is but a modification of the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR theory, or from my previous work.

[Jack]

[Stuart]

The only new elements Jack attempts to add serve only to detract from its feasibility.

[Gary]

IMHO Jack has simply seen through the problem into the depths. The most important part of his vision is connecting the action-reaction principle to consciousness. Everything else will eventually fall into place.